HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 4

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 2582 of 2012

Applicant :- Hari Prasad And Anr.

Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Vinay Misra

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of summoning order dated 28.05.2010 as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4339 of 2009 (Kaleem Vs. Hari Prasad and others), under Sections 406 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

3. Counsel for applicants states that the complaint in question is nothing but just a counter blast, but when confronted could not dispute that it is a defence version which need be proved by adducing cogent evidence and cannot be accepted on a bare assertion. Such a version, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. After going through the complaint, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and others documents, I am of the view that at this stage it cannot be said that commission of cognizable offence is not made out or there is any error legal or otherwise in the order passed by Court below against applicants. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Recently in Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :

?15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ?Cr.P.C.?) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.? (emphasis added)

4. Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadaun and another) decided on 31.01.2020.

5. No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.

6. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.2.2020

PS